I'm living in Delft at present, and as you can see from this photograph it's a crowded hellhole of a slum.
where are all the kiddies, and where do they play?
Dick Smith's Population Puzzle.
- Thread starter topcropper
- Start date
where are all the kiddies, and where do they play?
...oh, and that's not to mention the huge solar power system about to go up near Mildura, potentially leading to (from memory?) another 8 or 10 systems.
Also word still going out about the wimmera trying to get theirs too.
it's exciting. good ol' regional vic doing innovative things. we are possibly leading the country at moment. all the stuff happening, sustainable innovations.
many of the catchment dams here are powered by solar ...one of the local farmers that lives in a small community 770 people has a self sufficient power system for his house too, i think from memory he was out of pocket $16,000 after reimbursements, and it will pay it's way after 12 years?
he considered it the, and now, a good investment in establishing his own power supply utilising resources we have in bountiful supply here. sunlight hours.
us bushies aren't sitting on our butts entirely, it's not that unusual to find country people grasp and embrace that which is quite obvious to them. there probably will be more follow as Ian on his solar power, once their finances build up after the battering from the drought. Most of us are looking on intently and with envy-in a good way, "I want some of that".
Also word still going out about the wimmera trying to get theirs too.
it's exciting. good ol' regional vic doing innovative things. we are possibly leading the country at moment. all the stuff happening, sustainable innovations.
many of the catchment dams here are powered by solar ...one of the local farmers that lives in a small community 770 people has a self sufficient power system for his house too, i think from memory he was out of pocket $16,000 after reimbursements, and it will pay it's way after 12 years?
he considered it the, and now, a good investment in establishing his own power supply utilising resources we have in bountiful supply here. sunlight hours.
us bushies aren't sitting on our butts entirely, it's not that unusual to find country people grasp and embrace that which is quite obvious to them. there probably will be more follow as Ian on his solar power, once their finances build up after the battering from the drought. Most of us are looking on intently and with envy-in a good way, "I want some of that".
...and actually, we mostly "try" to use water we catch from the sky.
A 12 yearish-sort-of- drought dropped us back to probably 60% rainwater tank usage, 40% reliable on piped. Now we seem to be getting our average rain, we will be back into 100% using what we catch in tanks, off farmhouse roof, shedding around us, no roof is without a rainwater tank (or more) attached to it. We have also graded/land levelled the surrounding landscape to facilitate water run off into catchment dams, and this is all in the desert country.
Innovation and working with the conditions...the sand country is an allround provider, we never suffer the fate of the heavier country soil water logging, and in droughts (with no till farming methods) the sand is a sponge and holder of moisture to grow 20 bag crops...there "can be a perception" that some areas are unsuitable for food production, in many cases it's work with your environment/conditions and do things a little differently for productive outcomes.
Many folks don't realise that, that have set constructions of "what is" in their mind and it is not necessarily reflective of what is going down on the ground and being achieved.
The people on the land here are quite adapatable, innovative and resilient where needed....oh, and um, wealthy. Best of both worlds, the lifestyle and good at core business. And very nice people to boot.
A 12 yearish-sort-of- drought dropped us back to probably 60% rainwater tank usage, 40% reliable on piped. Now we seem to be getting our average rain, we will be back into 100% using what we catch in tanks, off farmhouse roof, shedding around us, no roof is without a rainwater tank (or more) attached to it. We have also graded/land levelled the surrounding landscape to facilitate water run off into catchment dams, and this is all in the desert country.
Innovation and working with the conditions...the sand country is an allround provider, we never suffer the fate of the heavier country soil water logging, and in droughts (with no till farming methods) the sand is a sponge and holder of moisture to grow 20 bag crops...there "can be a perception" that some areas are unsuitable for food production, in many cases it's work with your environment/conditions and do things a little differently for productive outcomes.
Many folks don't realise that, that have set constructions of "what is" in their mind and it is not necessarily reflective of what is going down on the ground and being achieved.
The people on the land here are quite adapatable, innovative and resilient where needed....oh, and um, wealthy. Best of both worlds, the lifestyle and good at core business.
And very nice people to boot.Can I suggest the purchase of a good wide screen plasma to entertain yourselves in the evening.....before you are forced to invest in multiple double bunk beds ??
Cheers - Sounds like there might be a strong financial return in that type of investment!
Hi OO
Those wind turbines have a rotor diameter of 112 metres. A Boeing 747 has a wingspan around 66 metres. Those sorts of economies of scale are required to get the cost anywhere near grid parity.
You will also note the cost of production from those turbines is still roughly twice the wholesale price from a conventional power station (giving a circa 30% increase on the retail price). That extra cost is being paid for by increasing electricity prices for everyone, regardless of whether they can afford it or not.
it's independence, it may seem like a greater outlay cost initially but ...the IRR
The IRR would be highly negative without the massive subsidies currently on offer. Small scale renewable energy systems are roughly three times the cost of production as large scale ones, so are at least 6 (to 10) times the cost of conventional power.
Again, it is all the people who don't have renewable power systems paying these subsidies in the form of higher electricity prices and / or taxes.
And finding someone to pay for it all...
Large scale solar in this form is roughly 3 times the cost of large scale wind. Its ability to follow system peaks might be worth around 10% of that price difference. The technologies being used have already been used and proven elsewhere - there is no "innovation" going on here.
There will only be more systems to follow if people can be found to pay for it.
Sorry to disappoint on that front but I'm not aware of any innovation involved in off the shelf systems. The genuinely innovative systems (a la Silex) have typically turned out to be expensive white elephants to date...
Most of us are looking on intently and with envy-in a good way, "I want some of that".
No doubt - it's a gravy train!
BTW you know I'm a passionate supporter of renewable energy but I want to see the debate framed by the realities of life rather than just what we would like to see. An average solar PV panel produces 50W and an average car needs an output around 100,000W. Talking about using the sun to power cars is just off with the fairies. Google the Solar Car Challenge to see the design compromises required and the level of insolation required.
We should be discussing how we can get sustainable energy into our power system at minimal cost, not maximum cost as represented by PV panels on roofs - there is literally no mainstream renewable energy option that is more expensive than that - why would we do it when it requires such a large subsidy? Once we have exhausted the cheap options then we can start working out if it's worth taking the next steps.
For me, asking to make electricity consumers pay for the extra cost of large scale wind is a reasonable step - our electricity prices are some of the lowest in the world and there is room for upside there - it is equivalent to a carbon price around $40-$50/tonne and we can afford it (provided there is support in other forms for the minority who can't). But extending that to the cost of solar PV would be equivalent to paying carbon prices around $300/tonne, which is just insane. That money could go far further in other forms...
As always your input and knowledge is interesting (and welcome) HiE.
I have some questions.
From Waubra site:
http://www.waubrawindfarm.com.au/index.htm
While obviously small scale production, is this not possibly the "part" solution to challenging issues of energy sources?
There is not one big fix to our state, but perhaps smaller schemes.
As a strategy, long term (part) solution.
Actually I did notice while we there looking, they have a lifespan:
Without putting you on the spot, and certainly not holding your word to anything, is the 25 yrs a long enough frame for any benefit? Just in your opinion, as you obvioulsy are closely connected with the industry or similar.
I have some questions.
From Waubra site:
http://www.waubrawindfarm.com.au/index.htm
While obviously small scale production, is this not possibly the "part" solution to challenging issues of energy sources?
There is not one big fix to our state, but perhaps smaller schemes.
As a strategy, long term (part) solution.
Actually I did notice while we there looking, they have a lifespan:
Without putting you on the spot, and certainly not holding your word to anything, is the 25 yrs a long enough frame for any benefit? Just in your opinion, as you obvioulsy are closely connected with the industry or similar.
...and, this, the Macarthur wind farm:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...enewable-energy-pd20100813-8A4VR?OpenDocument
are we wasting time and money then?
If so why do it?
I'm interested -
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...enewable-energy-pd20100813-8A4VR?OpenDocument
are we wasting time and money then?
If so why do it?
I'm interested -
...and this, going up near Mildura.(As well as the one at bridgewater):
http://www.silex.com.au/public/uploads/announce/Victorian govt solar initiative.pdf
They are not worth the time, money, energy?
Keeping in mind the solutions may be multi approach.
http://www.silex.com.au/public/uploads/announce/Victorian govt solar initiative.pdf
They are not worth the time, money, energy?
Keeping in mind the solutions may be multi approach.
HE, what do you know about heavy rare earth element mining processes?
I understand HREEs are required for PV solar panels and the magnets that go in wind turbines.
AFAIK, it is an expensive and high carbon fuel consumption process. China currently owns 97% of the world's REE production, and other productive reserves are extremely limited - though AUstralia has three owned by Arafura, Lynas, and Alkane. And China is aggressively cutting REE exports. I am currently looking at investing via the SMSF in the three above companies, none of which are producing yet, in addition to Molycorp and Great Western Minerals in North America, and several lithium producers.
I understand HREEs are required for PV solar panels and the magnets that go in wind turbines.
AFAIK, it is an expensive and high carbon fuel consumption process. China currently owns 97% of the world's REE production, and other productive reserves are extremely limited - though AUstralia has three owned by Arafura, Lynas, and Alkane. And China is aggressively cutting REE exports. I am currently looking at investing via the SMSF in the three above companies, none of which are producing yet, in addition to Molycorp and Great Western Minerals in North America, and several lithium producers.
My friends who have their solar panels and are not dependent on the grid, do not have any power bills any more...and us that are not dependent (little to none) for water "from the system"...are wasting our time and money?
I'm trying to get some clarification on this.
So you are saying there is a big cost and perhaps we should not be heading down these little paths?
Once we get enough of the renewable power systems, and it gets considerable feedback into the grid, as more and more take it up, wont that be feeding them?
Time. Time Time.
And wont be power be going up regardless if we sit on our hands, damned if we do, damned if we don't?
I'm trying to get some clarification on this.
So you are saying there is a big cost and perhaps we should not be heading down these little paths?
Once we get enough of the renewable power systems, and it gets considerable feedback into the grid, as more and more take it up, wont that be feeding them?
Time. Time Time.
And wont be power be going up regardless if we sit on our hands, damned if we do, damned if we don't?
...and an interesting article:
https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP91.pdf
The Australia Institute
Just some very brief excerpts, so as not to quote too much:
...and:
Be interesting to have any comments from you HiE.
https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP91.pdf
The Australia Institute
Just some very brief excerpts, so as not to quote too much:
...and:
Be interesting to have any comments from you HiE.
"What we need is to focus our efforts on developing a technology that uses solar energy to convert atmospheric CO2 into carbon and oxygen. It needs to be simple, reliable, cost effective and suitable for mass deployment. But the problem is what to call it?"
---
---
---
"A Tree?"
Only said in half jest. Tree planting in areas that are no longer suitable for agriculture (eg much of the marginal country in the WA Wheatbelt - I'm not advocating the use of TC's verdant paddocks here...) is profitable at a carbon price of $10-$20/tonne. Compared to wind energy at circa $40 - $50 per tonne and solar PV at circa $300 per tonne. In addition in these locations there are massive additional salinity, water quality and biodiversity benefits. But somehow trees aren't sexy enough to have a place in the "new" economy...
In addition, there are thousands of MW of energy efficiency measures across our economy that are highly profitable today with no carbon price that get overlooked, mostly because of the self imposed capital budget restrictions of big industry. Some of the waste I've seen out there...
So the problem I have is everyone focusses on the supply side of the electricity industry, where emissions reductions are the most expensive, rather than focussing on reducing their demand for electricity in the first place. And the other simple things we can do to reduce net emissions very cheaply, like planting a tree on land that is really too marginal to keep farming and may also help stop the spread of dryland salinity etc.
Now granted energy efficiency and tree planting (just to name two examples) aren't enough by themselves to solve the energy challenges of this century but surely we should focus on doing firstly the profitable and then the cheap options, before we move on to the expensive ones like "clean energy"? However. the only way this stuff is going to come out of the woodwork though is with a carbon price. I favour a simple carbon tax along the lines of the GST (to deal with the international trade issues) alongside simultaneous reductions in the number of other misc taxes (eg stamp duty!), the amount of income and company tax and moving middle class welfare towards people who genuinely need it.
OO - to answer your questions, different industries have different subsidies ATM. Large scale wind through the RET (and now irrelevant VRET as it since got subsumed by the Federal RET) schemes effectively require electricity retailers to pay generators the cost of their production and then spread that cost across their whole customer base. So while we still have such small amounts of wind it's easy to hide the numbers in the massive pool of the wider electricity market. To me that's a good thing - large scale wind is the cheapest renewable and we hardly have any of it so getting it off the ground now is a great idea (provided we also do the cheaper stuff as well) but let's not be unaware of its cost once it actually starts generating a meaningful percentage of our power requirements.
How much are we as consumers prepared to pay for renewable energy? There are some really rubbish numbers out there in the public domain unfortunately so no-one knows what it really costs, which doesn't help. We're going to get around 15% by 2020 with the RET for an increase of a few percent to retail prices, which certainly seems reasonable. The next 15% would probably require a 10-15% increase in prices. The next 15% around a further 25% increase in prices. You get the idea - it starts getting exponential after that. Are we willing and able to pay for it? The point of all this for me is to put out there that it's not cheap and it's certainly not free but it is available and the cost isn't going to kill us either. I'll leave it up to others to work out how much we can and/or should pay. The question is not how much there is but how much are we prepared to pay?
BTW all the evidence for wind turbines and solar panels is that 20 years is about the realistic limit. On large scale PV projects for example manufacturers will guarantee circa 90% of original output for 20 years. After that, every business case I've seen just values it at scrap value. All that is factored into the prices I've mentioned. The funny thing about financial modelling is if you added another twenty years to the life of the asset it would make bugger all difference to your prices today due to the discount applied to the cash flows that far out. Modern DCF accounting (to work out an IRR) doesn't value the future very highly... you need a return on and of capital in twenty years at most to make it fly in any case. Of course that picture would look different in twenty year's time!
WW - less than 10% of the wind turbines in the global market use any form of rare earth material. And those that do (permanent magnet generators) use a pretty tiny amount. Some PV technologies use them (eg thin film) but in much lesser concentration to the amount of silicon others use for example. Watching a 10MW arc furnace melt sand into silicon for PV panels makes it clear that this ain't the most efficient idea around either! The cost and energy required to extract and refine all the minerals for PV panels is reflected in their price and it's why they're so expensive - even using incredibly cheap (and dirty!) Chinese electricity, for example. Those cheap Chinese panels people keep putting on their roof are just congealed Chinese thermal coal after all...
---
---
---
"A Tree?"
Only said in half jest. Tree planting in areas that are no longer suitable for agriculture (eg much of the marginal country in the WA Wheatbelt - I'm not advocating the use of TC's verdant paddocks here...) is profitable at a carbon price of $10-$20/tonne. Compared to wind energy at circa $40 - $50 per tonne and solar PV at circa $300 per tonne. In addition in these locations there are massive additional salinity, water quality and biodiversity benefits. But somehow trees aren't sexy enough to have a place in the "new" economy...
In addition, there are thousands of MW of energy efficiency measures across our economy that are highly profitable today with no carbon price that get overlooked, mostly because of the self imposed capital budget restrictions of big industry. Some of the waste I've seen out there...
So the problem I have is everyone focusses on the supply side of the electricity industry, where emissions reductions are the most expensive, rather than focussing on reducing their demand for electricity in the first place. And the other simple things we can do to reduce net emissions very cheaply, like planting a tree on land that is really too marginal to keep farming and may also help stop the spread of dryland salinity etc.
Now granted energy efficiency and tree planting (just to name two examples) aren't enough by themselves to solve the energy challenges of this century but surely we should focus on doing firstly the profitable and then the cheap options, before we move on to the expensive ones like "clean energy"? However. the only way this stuff is going to come out of the woodwork though is with a carbon price. I favour a simple carbon tax along the lines of the GST (to deal with the international trade issues) alongside simultaneous reductions in the number of other misc taxes (eg stamp duty!), the amount of income and company tax and moving middle class welfare towards people who genuinely need it.
OO - to answer your questions, different industries have different subsidies ATM. Large scale wind through the RET (and now irrelevant VRET as it since got subsumed by the Federal RET) schemes effectively require electricity retailers to pay generators the cost of their production and then spread that cost across their whole customer base. So while we still have such small amounts of wind it's easy to hide the numbers in the massive pool of the wider electricity market. To me that's a good thing - large scale wind is the cheapest renewable and we hardly have any of it so getting it off the ground now is a great idea (provided we also do the cheaper stuff as well) but let's not be unaware of its cost once it actually starts generating a meaningful percentage of our power requirements.
How much are we as consumers prepared to pay for renewable energy? There are some really rubbish numbers out there in the public domain unfortunately so no-one knows what it really costs, which doesn't help. We're going to get around 15% by 2020 with the RET for an increase of a few percent to retail prices, which certainly seems reasonable. The next 15% would probably require a 10-15% increase in prices. The next 15% around a further 25% increase in prices. You get the idea - it starts getting exponential after that. Are we willing and able to pay for it? The point of all this for me is to put out there that it's not cheap and it's certainly not free but it is available and the cost isn't going to kill us either. I'll leave it up to others to work out how much we can and/or should pay. The question is not how much there is but how much are we prepared to pay?
BTW all the evidence for wind turbines and solar panels is that 20 years is about the realistic limit. On large scale PV projects for example manufacturers will guarantee circa 90% of original output for 20 years. After that, every business case I've seen just values it at scrap value. All that is factored into the prices I've mentioned. The funny thing about financial modelling is if you added another twenty years to the life of the asset it would make bugger all difference to your prices today due to the discount applied to the cash flows that far out. Modern DCF accounting (to work out an IRR) doesn't value the future very highly... you need a return on and of capital in twenty years at most to make it fly in any case. Of course that picture would look different in twenty year's time!
WW - less than 10% of the wind turbines in the global market use any form of rare earth material. And those that do (permanent magnet generators) use a pretty tiny amount. Some PV technologies use them (eg thin film) but in much lesser concentration to the amount of silicon others use for example. Watching a 10MW arc furnace melt sand into silicon for PV panels makes it clear that this ain't the most efficient idea around either! The cost and energy required to extract and refine all the minerals for PV panels is reflected in their price and it's why they're so expensive - even using incredibly cheap (and dirty!) Chinese electricity, for example. Those cheap Chinese panels people keep putting on their roof are just congealed Chinese thermal coal after all...
Last edited:
This is an important point. If we don't want it to, power costs don't have to rise very much in real terms for a couple of hundred years at least and probably more. That's if we choose to keep burning coal as we currently do. If we don't get a carbon price or equivalent obligation that is the most likely path forward and we can use it to desalinate seawater to water our quarter acre blocks...
Thermal coal is a stranded market in Australia (it's not worth enough internationally yet to bother shipping it around in meaningful quantities) and we have heaps of it and bugger all electricity demand in an international context. Heaps of supply and low demand = guaranteed low prices!
All the studies you would have seen about rising electricity prices would have had their first assumption that there would be a carbon price or some other restriction on the ability for coal to supply the market. There will also be some uplift from the so called "wall of wire" where all the transmission and distribution infrastructure built in the sixties needs replacing over this decade... but IMO the effect of this has been exaggerated by some who may have a vested interest!
Good on you HiE, thanks. Is all interesting. Food for thought (meaning in my learning capacity on this).
That isn't reflective of my reading about developments in turbine tech efficiency. Could you possibly recommend some reading?
Only if carbon prices get well over $40 / tonne. Remember this is the amount you have to increase everyone's price of electricity just to increase the amount of renewable energy by four per cent (from 11% up to 15%). It is not a reflection of how much more expensive wind is than conventional energy
You're not the first one to mention this. I know of very few documents that refer to rare earths in wind turbines because there are hardly any rare earths in wind turbines! Do you see my problem? It's like asking for information on wood use in tyre manufacturing...
Perhaps if you could point me to the source of your info for the question I may be able to trace down the point of confusion?
Of with the fairies now Hi Equity but don't forget , it took a computer the size of a bed room 50 yrs ago to store info than can now be held on a chip smaller than your little finger nail.
A laptop could in theory easily run a city the size of NY now .
It's just time and focus !
A 1000 watt panel I believe can be concentrated down to a size of 20 or 30 sq cm panel in time with maybe a 1000 times the intensity of present technology, maybe a lot more .
50 yrs ago a bicycle front wheel generated it's headlight , with technology even right now the modern version of that same dynamo but concentrated could power the whole bike or a small car right now on that same principal but if that was focused on and developed.
But that's just been in fun , curiosity. The old lady up the road runs all over the place on her self powered electric bike right now but imagine , what will be done with that and lots of other technology actually focused on as it will be from here on.
Now that they've excepted something has to be done and that the oil and coal companies have to go, well they should be , there are minds all over the world in backyard garages and in multi billion dollar labs actually working on this stuff with heart and the funds from here on in.
Gonna get really interesting , don't dare to dream !
Cheers
A laptop could in theory easily run a city the size of NY now .
It's just time and focus !
A 1000 watt panel I believe can be concentrated down to a size of 20 or 30 sq cm panel in time with maybe a 1000 times the intensity of present technology, maybe a lot more .
50 yrs ago a bicycle front wheel generated it's headlight , with technology even right now the modern version of that same dynamo but concentrated could power the whole bike or a small car right now on that same principal but if that was focused on and developed.
But that's just been in fun , curiosity. The old lady up the road runs all over the place on her self powered electric bike right now but imagine , what will be done with that and lots of other technology actually focused on as it will be from here on.
Now that they've excepted something has to be done and that the oil and coal companies have to go, well they should be , there are minds all over the world in backyard garages and in multi billion dollar labs actually working on this stuff with heart and the funds from here on in.
Gonna get really interesting , don't dare to dream !
Cheers
Sure, well carbon credits are currently about $18 a tonne and no countries currently have carbon trading. How high the price goes all depends on how tight the cap is, but current estimates I believe are that a cap & trade system with a cap tight enough to achieve Australias target of 5% reduction on 2000 emission levels would result in a price of about $40-$50 a tonne. Does that sound right?
That is certainly what some are saying. However, I know we could get an awful lot more abatement than 5% for $40 per tonne. But that would also depend on what technologies are deemed eligible for carbon abatement and how the rules end up getting drafted. From memory, even the CPRS projections had more abatement than that for $40 per tonne. $40 is a lot...
To me, cap and trade puts the cart before the horse. It says "I don't care what the cost is, we must have x% reduction no matter what". The price moves around and no-one has any certainty on their revenue.
Whereas a carbon tax says "It all depends on how much it costs and we are saying as a society that $x/tonne is a reasonable price to pay for emission reduction". If x doesn't do enough and we can afford to do more then we can increase it but at least everyone has a target to work towards - the amount of emissions varies rather than the cost - and it's the cost everyone is worried about.
Holland's up there in terms of highly density populated countries. I'm living in Delft at present, and as you can see from this photograph it's a crowded hellhole of a slum.
There are worse places to live, and it's worth noting you could fit Rudd's Big Australia into Tasmania with a lower population density than over here.
I mean really , it looks ok Graemsay , Melbourne has lots of streets like that but I guess I'd have to see the big picture , behind that pic !
At anyrate your moving to Oz yeah , don't worry mate heaps of space over here .
Good luck
Cheers